[MPlayer-DOCS] [PATCH] Compn's suggestions about the section "Choosing the video codec"

[The Wanderer]

Guillaume POIRIER wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On 3/5/06, The Wanderer <inverseparadox at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>>Guillaume POIRIER wrote:
> 
>>> +  <systemitem class="library">XviD</systemitem> to boost encoding speed, by about 40-60% in typical
>>>    cases, with low picture degradation.
>> 
>> This dropped the phrase "has some experimental patches" (see
>> above), presumably by mistake. If it wasn't a mistake, then note
>> that the result is not remotely grammatical.
> 
> It was intended. The patch isn't experimental anymore and has been
> committed to XviD's CVS. I fixed this sentence on attached patch.

I have one rephrasing to suggest for that change, but other than that
and Diego's note, looks good; feel free to commit as far as I'm concerned.

>>>    <emphasis role="bold">Personal taste</emphasis>:
>>> -  This is where it gets almost irrational: For the same reason that some
>>> -  hung on to DivX&nbsp;3 for years when newer codecs were already doing wonders,
>>> -  some folks will prefer <systemitem class="library">XviD</systemitem>
>>> -  or <systemitem class="library">libavcodec</systemitem> MPEG-4 over
>>> -  <systemitem class="library">x264</systemitem>.
>>> +  This is where it gets almost irrational:
>>> +  Back when the majority of people were using DivX&nbsp;3 and newer
>>> +  codecs started emerging, some people chose to stick with DivX&nbsp;3.
>>> +  They might have been afraid of change.
>>> +  This meant that they lost out on better quality codecs and got stuck
>>> +  with old DivX&nbsp;3 bugs.
>>> +  This is also happening today with
>>> +  <systemitem class="library">libavcodec<systemitem> and
>>> +  <systemitem class="library">XviD</systemitem> vs the newer codecs
>>> +  like <systemitem class="library">x264</systemitem>.
>> 
>> I don't like the new phrasing of just about any of this. About the
>> only advantage I see is that it's slower-paced, which reduces the
>> "skimming" feel. I could go over it and attempt to rephrase and
>> improve individual elements, but before I put in the effort I'd
>> like to know why it was felt that this section needed to be changed
>> at all.
> 
> Well, I guess you're right I'll leave the original sentenses.

Acknowledged. If anyone else feels that there *was* a good reason for
the change, please do explain what it was and I'll be glad to consider
changing my mind on the subject.

> New patch attached.

> +  <systemitem class="library">XviD</systemitem>'s multi-threaded encoding,
> +  activated by the <options>threads</option> option can be used to
> +  boost encoding speed, by about 40-60% in typical cases, with low if
> +  any picture degradation.

Missing comma after "threads" - but simply adding it drops the sentence
into comma confusion. I'd fix that new problem by replacing the commas
around "by about 40-60% in typical cases" with either parentheses or
emdashes. (I typically write the latter in ASCII as " - " rather than as
"--", but not everyone shares that preference.)

It occurst to me, randomly, that "low" might be better replaced by
"little" - just an idea for consideration, I'm not remotely certain
about that one.

-- 
       The Wanderer

Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.